We Keep Coding

avoiding if conditions for similar type of checks

Is there anyway to avoid these if conditions? because there may be different type of objects coming in.
if ("OpenOrder".equals(order.getClass().getSimpleName())) {
return OpenOrderBuilder.createOFSMessage((OpenOrder) order); //Returns String
}
if ("ExecutionOrder".equals(order.getClass().getSimpleName())) {
return ExecutionOrderBuilder.createOFSMessage((ExecutionOrder) order); //Returns String
}

You can use a Router pattern to do this. Simple add the computations in a Map like this:
Map<String, Function> router = new HashMap<>();
router.put("OpenOrder", (value) -> OpenOrderBuilder.createOFSMessage((OpenOrder) value));
router.put("ExecutionOrder", (value) -> ExecutionOrderBuilder.createOFSMessage((ExecutionOrder) order));
And you can route the order using the String key. Here is a "OpenOrder" example:
String result = (String) router.get("OpenOrder").apply(order);

There are many ways to do it. Which one to choose, depends on your needs and in this case in particular on how many different types of objects you will have.
I suggest looking at concepts like interfaces and inheritance and on specific design patterns.
One approach I tend to like, although still not perfect, works as follows:
interface Order {
}
interface OrderBuilder<T> {
T forType();
Object createOFSMessage(Order order);
}
class OpenOrderBuilder<OpenOrder> implements OrderBuilder {
#Override
OpenOrder forType() {
return OpenOrder.class;
}
...
}
class ExecutionOrderBuilder<ExecutionOrder> implements OrderBuilder {
#Override
ExecutionOrder forType() {
return ExecutionOrder.class;
}
...
}
class MyProcessor {
Map<Class, OrderBuilder> obs;
public void initialize() {
List<OrderBuilder> builders = new ArrayList<>();
builders.add(new OpenOrderBuilder());
builders.add(new ExecutionOrderBuilder());
obs = new HashMap<Class, OrderBuilder>();
for(OrderBuilder b : builders) {
obs.put(b.forType(), b);
}
}
public Object createOFSMessage(Order order) {
return obs.get(order.getClass()).createOFSMessage(order);
}
}
In the above example, adding a new implementation would just consist of adding an entry to the builders collection. While in the example above it's done manually, normally this is done through Dependency Injection and frameworks like spring (in which case, the initialize method may turn into a constructor with builders as an #Autowired argument).
There are of course other ways, some more simple some more complicated. The best way really depends on what you have to do and one key rule: the less code you have the better.

First one should not forget the switch-on-string:
switch (order.getClass().getSimpleName()) {
case "OpenOrder":
return OpenOrderBuilder.createOFSMessage((OpenOrder) order); //Returns String
case "ExecutionOrder":
return ExecutionOrderBuilder.createOFSMessage((ExecutionOrder) order); //Returns String
}
The code however shows inheritance being used in combination with static child class factories. Evidently a createOFSMessage is not desired in the Order base class.
Then use a non-static "builder" - a factory. Follow the strategy pattern.

If you already know the type when calling the method, this code can help you :
private String CreateOFSMessage(Class<T> classOrder) {
if ("OpenOrder".equals(classOrder.getSimpleName())) {
return OpenOrderBuilder.createOFSMessage((classOrder) order);
}else if ("ExecutionOrder".equals(classOrder.getSimpleName())) {
return ExecutionOrderBuilder.createOFSMessage((classOrder) order);
}
}

How eliminate switch in this specific example

I have controller method that get data from request and based on subject variable from request decide to call a function. (for project need I cannot use seperate controller method for each subject variable)
For now I used switch but I think it breaks Open Closed Principle (because every time new type of subject added I have to add new case to switch) and not good design, How can I refactor this code?
Subject subject = ... //(type of enum)
JSONObject data = request.getData("data");
switch(subject) {
case SEND_VERIFY:
send_foo1(data.getString("foo1_1"), data.getString("foo1_2"));
break;
case do_foo2:
foo2(data.getInt("foo2_b"), data.getInt("foo2_cc"));
break;
case do_foo3:
do_foo3_for(data.getString("foo3"));
break;
// some more cases
}

While I am not sure about which OO principle this snippet violates, there is indeed a more roust way to achieve the logic: tie the processing for each enum value to the enum class.
You will need to generalize the processing into an interface:
public interface SubjectProcessor
{
void process(JSONObject data);
}
and create concrete implementations for each enum value:
public class SendVerifySubjectProcessor implements SubjectProcessor
{
#Override
public void process(JSONObject data) {
String foo1 = data.getString("foo1_1");
String foo2 = data.getString("foo1_2");
...
}
}
once you have that class hierarchy tree, you can associate each enum value to a concrete processor
public enum Subject
{
SEND_VERIFY(new SendVerifySubjectProcessor()),
do_foo2(new Foo2SubjectProcessor()),
...
private SubjectProcessor processor
Subject(SubjectProcessor processor) {
this.processor = processor;
}
public void process(JSONObject data) {
this.processor.process(data);
}
}
This eliminates the need for the switch statement in the controller:
Subject subject = ... //(type of enum)
JSONObject data = request.getData("data");
subject.process(data);
EDIT:
Following the good comment, You can utilize the java.util.function.Consumer functional interface instead of the custom SubjectProcessor one. You can decide whether to write concrete classes or use the lambda expr construct.
public class SendVerifySubjectProcessor implements Consumer<JSONObject>
{
#Override
public void accept(JSONObject data) {
String foo1 = data.getString("foo1_1");
String foo2 = data.getString("foo1_2");
...
}
}
OR
public enum Subject
{
SEND_VERIFY(data -> {
String foo1 = data.getString("foo1_1");
String foo2 = data.getString("foo1_2");
...
}),
...
private Consumer<Subject> processor
Subject(Consumer<Subject> processor) {
this.processor = processor;
}
public void process(JSONObject data) {
this.processor.accept(data);
}
}

// SubjectsMapping.java
Map<Subject, Consumer<JSONObject>> tasks = new HashMap<>();
tasks.put(SEND_VERIFY,
data -> send_foo1(data.getString("foo1_1"), data.getString("foo1_2")));
tasks.put(do_foo2,
data -> foo2(data.getInt("foo2_b"), data.getInt("foo2_cc")));
tasks.put(do_foo3, data -> do_foo3_for(data.getString("foo3")));
// In your controller class where currently `switch` code written
if (tasks.containsKey(subject)) {
tasks.get(subject).accept(data);
} else {
throw new IllegalArgumentException("No suitable task");
}
You can maintain Map<Subject, Consumer<JSONObject>> tasks configuration in separate class rather than mixing with if (tasks.containsKey(subject)) code. When you need another feature you can configure one entry in this map.

Answers of others seems to be great, as an addition I would suggest using EnumMap for storing enums as keys as it might be more efficient than the standard Map. I think it's also worth mentioning that the Strategy Pattern is used here to achieve calling specific actions for each key from Map without the need of building long switch statements.

Java code refactoring: multiple instanceof operator usages

Consider the following example where the classes TextFile, XmlFile, HtmlFile, ShellScriptFile, et cetera, are all subclasses of the class SimpleFile. I am writing a class FileOperations, which has a method that searches the contents of a generic file depending on its type.
Following is a code sample:
public searchFile(SimpleFile targetFile, String searchStr) {
if (targetPage instanceof HtmlFile) {
// search html file
}
else if (targetPage instanceof TextFile) {
// search text file
}
else if (targetPage instanceof XmlFile) {
// search xml file
}
else if (targetPage instanceof ShellScriptFile) {
// search shell file
}
...
}
This structure smells bad to me. I am aware that this is the best case for polymorphism. But I do not have control over the File class or its subclasses.I cannot write to them.
Is there another way to go about cleaning this mess? Because the if-else structure is going to keep increasing as I add support for different file types.
Else, if I am stuck with this structure, then is instanceof the fastest operator in Java? What are its implications on performance?
Would it be better to use getClass() or isAssignableFrom() for the above case?
I appreciate your comments or suggestions!

First I would say that your example doesn't seem bad at all. It's a little verbose, and arguable not as cohesive as separating them into different methods but it looks fairly normal to me. I think a neater approach might be to use overloading instead. I can't speak for the difference in speed but from a maintenance and extensibility stance it will be easier to deal with in future.
public void searchFile(SimpleFile targetFile , String searchStr) {
// SimpleFile generalized behavior.
if (targetPage instanceof HtmlFile) searchFile((HtmlFile)targetFile, searchStr);
else if (targetPage instanceof TextFile) searchFile((TextFile)targetFile, searchStr);
else if (targetPage instanceof XmlFile) searchFile((XmlFile)targetFile, searchStr);
else if (targetPage instanceof ShellScriptFile) searchFile((ShellScriptFile)targetFile, searchStr);
else System.out.println("Subtype not recognised");
}
public void searchFile(HtmlFile targetFile , String searchStr) {
// HtmlFile specific behavior
}
public void searchFile(TextFile targetFile , String searchStr) {
// TextFile specific behavior
}
public void searchFile(XmlFile targetFile , String searchStr) {
// XmlFile specific behavior
}
public void searchFile(ShellScriptFile targetFile , String searchStr) {
// ShellScript specific behavior
}
In the event of a new subclass of SimpleFile, it will default to the SimpleFile version of the method. In the event that the type is not known at compile time (as brought up in the comments) the most general searchFile() method can be used to check and redistribute the object accordingly.
Edit: As a note on the performance impact of multiple use of instanceof, the consensus appears to be that it's irrelevant, and that the use of modern instanceof is pretty fast anyway.

If you could modify File and its subclasses, you could try using the Visitor pattern. Since you cannot, I recommend that you consolidate your type testing switch statement into a single method so that you will only need to modify one switch.
public Enum FileHandler {
HTML(){
public search(File file, String searchstr){ /* ... */}
public prettyPrint(File file){ /* ... */}
},
XML(){ /* ... */};
// ... end list of enum implementations
public static FileHander get(File file){
// Put your master switch statement here
if (targetPage instanceof HtmlFile) {
return HTML;
}
else if (targetPage instanceof XmlFile) {
return XML;
}
// ...
}
}
And your code to use the enum class will look something like this, avoiding the dreaded switch statement:
public searchFile(SimpleFile targetFile, String searchStr) {
FileHandler.get(targetFile).search(targetFile, searchStr);
}

My approach would be to create an interface FileSearcher with a single method that performs the business logic. Create one implementation of this interface per file type. Then, create a registry which maps subclasses of SimpleFile to their corresponding implementation of FileSearcher. In your search file method, rather than doing the instanceof checks, look up the matching FileSeacher implementation at runtime and delegate to it.
With this implementation you may run into trouble when there are subclasses of HtmlFile etc., because you would have to map HtmlFileSearcher to all subclasses of HtmlFile. In that case, add another method to FileSearcher, named canHandle(Class<SimpleFile> runtimeClass) that allows FileSearcher implementations to signal what file class they understand. In the registry, rather than looking it up in the map, walk over all registered FileSearchers.

you could use interpreter-design-pattern or chain-of-responsibility-design-pattern to solve this problem. these patterns seem just the perfect fix for this problem.
an example for interpreter-design-pattern, comment if you need an example for chain-of-responsibility-design-pattern
Client:
public Integer wordCountOnPage (Page samplePage)
{
ArrayList list = new ArrayList<Page>();
list.add(new XmlPage());
list.add(new HtmlPage());
list.add(new JsonPage());
for (int index = 0 ; index < list.size(); index ++)
{
Page eachPage = (Page) list.get(index);
if (eachPage.intercept(samplePage)){
Integer i = eachPage.wordCountOnPage(samplePage);
}
}
return 1;
}
public class XmlPage implements Page {
#Override
public Boolean intercept(Page page) {
// TODO Auto-generated method stub
return page instanceof XmlPage;
}
#Override
public Integer wordCountOnPage(Page page) {
// TODO Auto-generated method stub
return null;
}
}
public interface Page {
Boolean intercept(Page page);
Integer wordCountOnPage(Page page);
}

Letting the code try different things until it succeeds, neatly

This is the second time I found myself writing this kind of code, and decided that there must be a more readable way to accomplish this:
My code tries to figure something out, that's not exactly well defined, or there are many ways to accomplish it. I want my code to try out several ways to figure it out, until it succeeds, or it runs out of strategies. But I haven't found a way to make this neat and readable.
My particular case: I need to find a particular type of method from an interface. It can be annotated for explicitness, but it can also be the only suitable method around (per its arguments).
So, my code currently reads like so:
Method candidateMethod = getMethodByAnnotation(clazz);
if (candidateMethod == null) {
candidateMethod = getMethodByBeingOnlyMethod(clazz);
}
if (candidateMethod == null) {
candidateMethod = getMethodByBeingOnlySuitableMethod(clazz);
}
if (candidateMethod == null) {
throw new NoSuitableMethodFoundException(clazz);
}
There must be a better way…
Edit: The methods return a method if found, null otherwise. I could switch that to try/catch logic, but that hardly makes it more readable.
Edit2: Unfortunately, I can accept only one answer :(

To me it is readable and understandable. I'd simply extract the ugly part of the code to a separate method (following some basic principles from "Robert C.Martin: Clean Code") and add some javadoc (and apologies, if necessary) like that:
//...
try {
Method method = MethodFinder.findMethodIn(clazz);
catch (NoSuitableMethodException oops) {
// handle exception
}
and later on in MethodFinder.java
/**
* Will find the most suitable method in the given class or throw an exception if
* no such method exists (...)
*/
public static Method findMethodIn(Class<?> clazz) throws NoSuitableMethodException {
// all your effort to get a method is hidden here,
// protected with unit tests and no need for anyone to read it
// in order to understand the 'main' part of the algorithm.
}

I think for a small set of methods what you're doing is fine.
For a larger set, I might be inclined to build a Chain of Responsibility, which captures the base concept of trying a sequence of things until one works.

I don't think that this is such a bad way of doing it. It is a bit verbose, but it clearly conveys what you are doing, and is easy to change.
Still, if you want to make it more concise, you can wrap the methods getMethod* into a class which implements an interface ("IMethodFinder") or similar:
public interface IMethodFinder{
public Method findMethod(...);
}
Then you can create instances of you class, put them into a collection and loop over it:
...
Method candidateMethod;
findLoop:
for (IMethodFinder mf: myMethodFinders){
candidateMethod = mf.findMethod(clazz);
if (candidateMethod!=null){
break findLoop;
}
}
if (candidateMethod!=null){
// method found
} else {
// not found :-(
}
While arguably somewhat more complicated, this will be easier to handle if you e.g. need to do more work between calling the findMethods* methods (such as more verification that the method is appropriate), or if the list of ways to find methods is configurable at runtime...
Still, your approach is probably OK as well.

I'm sorry to say, but the method you use seems to be the widely accepted one. I see a lot of code like that in the code base of large libraries like Spring, Maven etc.
However, an alternative would be to introduce a helper interface that can convert from a given input to a given output. Something like this:
public interface Converter<I, O> {
boolean canConvert(I input);
O convert(I input);
}
and a helper method
public static <I, O> O getDataFromConverters(
final I input,
final Converter<I, O>... converters
){
O result = null;
for(final Converter<I, O> converter : converters){
if(converter.canConvert(input)){
result = converter.convert(input);
break;
}
}
return result;
}
So then you could write reusable converters that implement your logic. Each of the converters would have to implement the canConvert(input) method to decide whether it's conversion routines will be used.
Actually: what your request reminds me of is the Try.these(a,b,c) method in Prototype (Javascript).
Usage example for your case:
Let's say you have some beans that have validation methods. There are several strategies to find these validation methods. First we'll check whether this annotation is present on the type:
// retention, target etc. stripped
public #interface ValidationMethod {
String value();
}
Then we'll check whether there's a method called "validate". To make things easier I assume, that all methods define a single parameter of type Object. You may choose a different pattern. Anyway, here's sample code:
// converter using the annotation
public static final class ValidationMethodAnnotationConverter implements
Converter<Class<?>, Method>{
#Override
public boolean canConvert(final Class<?> input){
return input.isAnnotationPresent(ValidationMethod.class);
}
#Override
public Method convert(final Class<?> input){
final String methodName =
input.getAnnotation(ValidationMethod.class).value();
try{
return input.getDeclaredMethod(methodName, Object.class);
} catch(final Exception e){
throw new IllegalStateException(e);
}
}
}
// converter using the method name convention
public static class MethodNameConventionConverter implements
Converter<Class<?>, Method>{
private static final String METHOD_NAME = "validate";
#Override
public boolean canConvert(final Class<?> input){
return findMethod(input) != null;
}
private Method findMethod(final Class<?> input){
try{
return input.getDeclaredMethod(METHOD_NAME, Object.class);
} catch(final SecurityException e){
throw new IllegalStateException(e);
} catch(final NoSuchMethodException e){
return null;
}
}
#Override
public Method convert(final Class<?> input){
return findMethod(input);
}
}
// find the validation method on a class using the two above converters
public static Method findValidationMethod(final Class<?> beanClass){
return getDataFromConverters(beanClass,
new ValidationMethodAnnotationConverter(),
new MethodNameConventionConverter()
);
}
// example bean class with validation method found by annotation
#ValidationMethod("doValidate")
public class BeanA{
public void doValidate(final Object input){
}
}
// example bean class with validation method found by convention
public class BeanB{
public void validate(final Object input){
}
}

You may use Decorator Design Pattern to accomplish different ways of finding out how to find something.
public interface FindMethod
{
public Method get(Class clazz);
}
public class FindMethodByAnnotation implements FindMethod
{
private final FindMethod findMethod;
public FindMethodByAnnotation(FindMethod findMethod)
{
this.findMethod = findMethod;
}
private Method findByAnnotation(Class clazz)
{
return getMethodByAnnotation(clazz);
}
public Method get(Class clazz)
{
Method r = null == findMethod ? null : findMethod.get(clazz);
return r == null ? findByAnnotation(clazz) : r;
}
}
public class FindMethodByOnlyMethod implements FindMethod
{
private final FindMethod findMethod;
public FindMethodByOnlyMethod(FindMethod findMethod)
{
this.findMethod = findMethod;
}
private Method findByOnlyMethod(Class clazz)
{
return getMethodOnlyMethod(clazz);
}
public Method get(Class clazz)
{
Method r = null == findMethod ? null : findMethod.get(clazz);
return r == null ? findByOnlyMethod(clazz) : r;
}
}
Usage is quite simple
FindMethod finder = new FindMethodByOnlyMethod(new FindMethodByAnnotation(null));
finder.get(clazz);

... I could switch that to try/catch logic, but that hardly makes it more readable.
Changing the signature of the get... methods so you can use try / catch would be a really bad idea. Exceptions are expensive and should only be used for "exceptional" conditions. And as you say, the code would be less readable.

What is bothering you is the repeating pattern used for flow control--and it should bother you--but there isn't too much to be done about it in Java.
I get really annoyed at repeated code & patterns like this, so for me it would probably be worth it to extract the repeated copy & paste control code and put it in it's own method:
public Method findMethod(Class clazz)
int i=0;
Method candidateMethod = null;
while(candidateMethod == null) {
switch(i++) {
case 0:
candidateMethod = getMethodByAnnotation(clazz);
break;
case 1:
candidateMethod = getMethodByBeingOnlyMethod(clazz);
break;
case 2:
candidateMethod = getMethodByBeingOnlySuitableMethod(clazz);
break;
default:
throw new NoSuitableMethodFoundException(clazz);
}
return clazz;
}
Which has the disadvantage of being unconventional and possibly more verbose, but the advantage of not having as much repeated code (less typos) and reads easier because of there being a little less clutter in the "Meat".
Besides, once the logic has been extracted into it's own class, verbose doesn't matter at all, it's clarity for reading/editing and for me this gives that (once you understand what the while loop is doing)
I do have this nasty desire to do this:
case 0: candidateMethod = getMethodByAnnotation(clazz); break;
case 1: candidateMethod = getMethodByBeingOnlyMethod(clazz); break;
case 2: candidateMethod = getMethodByBeingOnlySuitableMethod(clazz); break;
default: throw new NoSuitableMethodFoundException(clazz);
To highlight what's actually being done (in order), but in Java this is completely unacceptable--you'd actually find it common or preferred in some other languages.
PS. This would be downright elegant (damn I hate that word) in groovy:
actualMethod = getMethodByAnnotation(clazz) ?:
getMethodByBeingOnlyMethod(clazz) ?:
getMethodByBeingOnlySuitableMethod(clazz) ?:
throw new NoSuitableMethodFoundException(clazz) ;
The elvis operator rules. Note, the last line may not actually work, but it would be a trivial patch if it doesn't.

Check chains of "get" calls for null

Let's say I'd like to perform the following command:
house.getFloor(0).getWall(WEST).getDoor().getDoorknob();
To avoid a NullPointerException, I'd have to do the following if:
if (house != null && house.getFloor(0) && house.getFloor(0).getWall(WEST) != null
&& house.getFloor(0).getWall(WEST).getDoor() != null) ...
Is there a way or an already existing Utils class that does this more elegantly, let's say something like the following?
checkForNull(house.getFloor(0).getWall(WEST).getDoor().getDoorknob());

In case you can't avoid breaking Law of Demeter (LoD) as stated in the chosen answer, and with Java 8 introducing Optional, it would be probably the best practice to handle nulls in chains of gets such as yours.
The Optional type will enable you to pipe multiple map operations (which contain get calls) in a row. Null checks are automatically handled under the hood.
For example, when the objects aren't initialized, no print() will be made and no Exceptions will be thrown. It all we be handled gently under the hood. When objects are initialized, a print will be made.
System.out.println("----- Not Initialized! -----");
Optional.ofNullable(new Outer())
.map(out -> out.getNested())
.map(nest -> nest.getInner())
.map(in -> in.getFoo())
.ifPresent(foo -> System.out.println("foo: " + foo)); //no print
System.out.println("----- Let's Initialize! -----");
Optional.ofNullable(new OuterInit())
.map(out -> out.getNestedInit())
.map(nest -> nest.getInnerInit())
.map(in -> in.getFoo())
.ifPresent(foo -> System.out.println("foo: " + foo)); //will print!
class Outer {
Nested nested;
Nested getNested() {
return nested;
}
}
class Nested {
Inner inner;
Inner getInner() {
return inner;
}
}
class Inner {
String foo = "yeah!";
String getFoo() {
return foo;
}
}
class OuterInit {
NestedInit nested = new NestedInit();
NestedInit getNestedInit() {
return nested;
}
}
class NestedInit {
InnerInit inner = new InnerInit();
InnerInit getInnerInit() {
return inner;
}
}
class InnerInit {
String foo = "yeah!";
String getFoo() {
return foo;
}
}
So, with your getters chain it will look like this:
Optional.ofNullable(house)
.map(house -> house.getFloor(0))
.map(floorZero -> floorZero.getWall(WEST))
.map(wallWest -> wallWest.getDoor())
.map(door -> wallWest.getDoor())
The return of it will be something like Optional<Door> which will allow you much safer work without worrying of null exceptions.

In order to check a chain of gets for null you may need to call your code from a closure. The closure call code will look like this:
public static <T> T opt(Supplier<T> statement) {
try {
return statement.get();
} catch (NullPointerException exc) {
return null;
}
}
And you call it using the following syntax:
Doorknob knob = opt(() -> house.getFloor(0).getWall(WEST).getDoor().getDoorknob());
This code is also type safe and in general works as intended:
Returns an actual value of the specified type if all the objects in the chain are not null.
Returns null if any of the objects in the chain are null.
You may place opt method into shared util class and use it everywhere in your application.

The best way would be to avoid the chain. If you aren't familiar with the Law of Demeter (LoD), in my opinion you should. You've given a perfect example of a message chain that is overly intimate with classes that it has no business knowing anything about.
Law of Demeter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Demeter

You could of course simply wrap the whole expression up in a try-catch block, but that's a bad idea. Something cleaner is the Null object pattern. With that, if your house doesn't have floor 0, it just returns a Floor that acts like a regular Floor, but has no real content; Floors, when asked for Walls they don't have, return similar "Null" Walls, etc, down the line.

Make sure things that can't logically be null are not. For example - a house always has a West wall. In order to avoid such exceptions in state, you can have methods to check whether the state you expect is present:
if (wall.hasDoor()) {
wall.getDoor().etc();
}
This is essentially a null-check, but might not always be.
The point is that you should do something in case you have a null. For example - return or throw an IllegalStateException
And what you shouldn't do - don't catch NullPointerException. Runtime exceptions are not for catching - it is not expected that you can recover from them, nor it is a good practice to rely on exceptions for the logic flow. Imagine that you actually don't expect something to be null, and you catch (and log) a NullPointerException. This will not be very useful information, since many things can be null at that point.

Better solution for me is to use java.util.Optional.map(..) to chain these checks : https://stackoverflow.com/a/67216752/1796826

There is no checkForNull method that you can write that will facilitate this (that's simply not how method invokation and argument evaluation works in Java).
You can break down the chained statements into multiple statements, checking at every step. However, perhaps a better solution is to not have these methods return null in the first place. There is something called the Null Object Pattern that you may want to use instead.
Related questions
How to avoid != null statements in Java?

You could potentially have a generic method like below:
public static <T> void ifPresentThen(final Supplier<T> supplier, final Consumer<T> consumer) {
T value;
try {
value = supplier.get();
} catch (NullPointerException e) {
// Don't consume "then"
return;
}
consumer.accept(value);
}
So now you would be able to do
ifPresentThen(
() -> house.getFloor(0).getWall(WEST).getDoor().getDoorknob(),
doorKnob -> doSomething());

implementing nullPointer try/catch with a Supplier you can send it all chain of get
public static <T> T getValue(Supplier<T> getFunction, T defaultValue) {
try {
return getFunction.get();
} catch (NullPointerException ex) {
return defaultValue;
}
}
and then call it in this way.
ObjectHelper.getValue(() -> object1.getObject2().getObject3().getObject4()));

Very old question, but still adding my suggestion:
I would suggest instead of getting the DoorKnob from deep within the House in one method call chain, you should try to let the DoorKnob be provided to this class from the calling code, or by creating a central lookup facility specifically for this purpose (e.g. a DoorKnob service)
Simplified example of design with loose coupling:
class Architect {
FloorContractor floorContractor;
void build(House house) {
for(Floor floor: house.getFloors()) {
floorContractor.build(floor);
}
}
}
class FloorContractor {
DoorMaker doorMaker;
void build(Floor floor) {
for(Wall wall: floor.getWalls()) {
if (wall.hasDoor()) {
doorMaker.build(wall.getDoor());
}
}
}
}
class DoorMaker {
Tool tool;
void build(Door door) {
tool.build(door.getFrame());
tool.build(door.getHinges());
tool.build(door.getDoorKnob());
}
}

// Example
LazyObject.from(curr).apply(A.class, A::getB).apply(B.class, B::getC).apply(C.class, C::getD).to(String.class);
// LazyObject.java
public class LazyObject {
private Object value;
private LazyObject(Object object) {
this.value = object;
}
public <F, T> LazyObject apply(Class<F> type, Function<F, T> func) {
Object v = value;
if (type.isInstance(v)) {
value = func.apply(type.cast(v));
} else {
value = null; // dead here
}
return this;
}
public <T> void accept(Class<T> type, Consumer<T> consumer) {
Object v = value;
if (type.isInstance(v)) {
consumer.accept(type.cast(v));
}
}
public <T> T to(Class<T> type) {
Object v = value;
if (type.isInstance(v)) {
return type.cast(v);
}
return null;
}
public static LazyObject from(Object object) {
return new LazyObject(object);
}
}